Is NIS+ available open source or is it proprietary

nelsonmckinnon

Hello everybody. Does anybody know if NIS+ is open source or is it proprietary? (I know a lot of people recommend avoiding it but I need to find this out). If anybody could suggest a website that would provide a definitive answer I would be very grateful.

Goineasy9

I would assume it's open source, though I can't find the exact license.

http://www.yolinux.com/HOWTO/NIS-HOWTO.html
http://www.linux-nis.org/nisplus/

These are 2 sources that might lead to the info your looking for, I did a quick scan of them and didn't see much. Except the fact that the development of NIS+ has stopped a long time ago and that the code is hosted by kernel.org. I don't think kernel.org would be hosting a proprietary program. I also don't think it would have made the Debian repos without the correct license. My guess would be GPL2.

Maybe someone who has been around much longer than me in linux networking could chime in.

nelsonmckinnon

Thanks for the info GE9. I've sent away for a book that may help. I'll post my findings when it turns up.

mfillpot

Directly in the root directory of the tar archive there is a COPYING file that contains the GPL v2.

nelsonmckinnon

I have a definite answer. While NIS+ is no longer supported, it is still owned by Sun Microsystems and is not open source. My source is : Siever, E (2005) Linux in a Nutshell. 5th ed. California: O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., pp 29.

woboyle

nelsonmckinnon wrote:

I have a definite answer. While NIS+ is no longer supported, it is still owned by Sun Microsystems and is not open source. My source is : Siever, E (2005) Linux in a Nutshell. 5th ed. California: O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., pp 29.

A package can be open sourced, but still "owned" by a company like Sun/Oracle. The license is the issue. IE, I can write software, release it to the FOSS community with a GPL or other license (BSD, Apache, et al), yet still maintain ownership of the code. Because I own the copyright, I can modify it for other purposes without placing the new code into the public domain. So, ownership != openness.